Excerpt:execution - sale--property transferred by auction-purchaser--transferee deprived of possession--refund by auction-purchaser--suit to recover purchase-money by auction-purchaser from decree-holders, whether maintainable. - - 1216. we think that the case being governed by that ruling this appeal must fail and it is, therefore, dismissed with costs......ganesh prasad and others obtained a decree against asharfi lal and others. they had prior to the suit obtained attachment of certain property. one badri prasad came forward and claimed the property as his own and his objection was disallowed. he thereupon brought a suit for a declaration that the property was his and was not attachable and saleable in execution of the decree. his suit was dismissed by the first court on the 1st of march 1909. the property was then put to sale and was purchased by sita ram on the 1st of october 1909. badri prasad, however, appealed and on appeal he succeeded and the court held that the property was his and that the judgment-debtors had no interest therein. this decree was passed on the 3rd of june 1910. in the meantime sita ram had transferred the.....

Judgment:

1. This and the connected Appeal No. 936 of 1916 arise out of the same suit. The facts are simple. Ganesh Prasad and others obtained a decree against Asharfi Lal and others. They had prior to the suit obtained attachment of certain property. One Badri Prasad came forward and claimed the property as his own and his objection was disallowed. He thereupon brought a suit for a declaration that the property was his and was not attachable and saleable in execution of the decree. His suit was dismissed by the first Court on the 1st of March 1909. The property was then put to sale and was purchased by Sita Ram on the 1st of October 1909. Badri Prasad, however, appealed and on appeal he succeeded and the Court held that the property was his and that the judgment-debtors had no interest therein. This decree was passed on the 3rd of June 1910. In the meantime Sita Ram had transferred the property to Shiam Sundar Lal and the latter was in possession. Badri Prasad sued him for possession and obtained a decree on the 31st of July 1912 and in due course he ousted him. Sita Ram then refunded to Shiam Sundar Lal what the latter had paid to him for the property. He has now assigned his rights, whatever they may be, to the present plaintiff-appellant who appears to be a speculator, and he has sued to recover the sale price paid by Sita Ram which, we may mention, had been distributed among a large body of creditors in addition to the decree-holders in the original suit against Asharfi Lal. The Court below has dismissed the suit on the ground that it was not maintainable. The case is on all fours with the case of Nannu Lal v. Bhagwan Das 37 Ind. Cas. 9 : 39 A. 114 : 14 A.L.J. 1216. We think that the case being governed by that ruling this appeal must fail and it is, therefore, dismissed with costs.